HARRISBURG — A panel of seven judges hinted Wednesday that parents and school districts have a long shot at getting the courts to overturn the state's school funding system, and that even if they win, new money might not follow.

Commonwealth Court heard arguments in a school funding lawsuit that seven parents and six urban and rural school districts — including Panther Valley in Carbon County — filed against the governor, legislative leaders and the Department of Education.

In Pennsylvania, the majority of money used to pay for teachers, staff and programs involved in the education of children comes from local property taxes. The state chips in the next highest level and the federal government the least.

The state's allocation is based on a per-pupil formula that gives districts extra money based on the relative wealth of their local property tax base. That allows the Allentown School District, which has a poorer tax base, to get more state aid than the Parkland School District, which has a more robust tax base.

Politics also can play a role in how money is doled out as evidenced by Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh, one of the Senate's Republican leaders, securing an extra $10 million for Allentown in 2013.

The lawsuit, filed in November, seeks a new state formula, in part, because studies have shown it costs more money to educate poor students or students with limited English skills than it does students from wealthier families who reside in more affluent areas.

In 2011-12, the lawsuit claims, then-Gov. Tom Corbett tossed a legislatively-approved 2007 funding formula that gave poorer districts more money based on socioeconomic factors that can dictate a child's ability to learn. As a result, the lawsuit alleges, schools are not given enough state money to meet legislatively-approved academic standards — including the Keystone exams that students must pass to earn diplomas starting in 2017 — under the Pennsylvania Constitution's clause that says: "The General Assembly shall provide for … a thorough and efficient system of public education."

The lawsuit needs to be dismissed, argued Patrick Northen, an attorney representing House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, and Senate Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson. State courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have rejected similar school funding lawsuits because there is no definition of "thorough and efficient," and courts have been reluctant to determine adequate funding, he said.

"It's up the Legislature to develop the system," Northen said.

The court should not intervene in school funding, added Lucy Fritz, deputy attorney general representing Gov. Tom Wolf, who was added to the lawsuit to replace Corbett. Lawmakers and Wolf need to develop a better funding system through Wolf's proposal to increase school funding in his 2015-16 budget and the Legislature's Basic Education Funding Commission, which is scheduled to release its recommended new formula in June, Fritz said.

"This is a public policy debate and should not be fought out in the courts," she said.

The lawsuit needs to go forward, countered Brad Elias, attorney for those who filed the lawsuit. Prior court decisions were rendered before the Legislature and Department of Education began setting mandatory academic standards in 1999. In addition, Elias said, the state's over-reliance on local school property taxes to pay for education hurts poor districts with low tax bases.

But how broken is the system, judges asked, and does the court have the authority to order the Legislature to change it?

Does the court need to wait until 2017, Judge Anne E. Covey asked, when legions of students might fail to graduate due to Keystone Exam results to determine if the Legislature has adequately funded schools?

As long as the public schools are open, they are functioning and teachers are performing their duties, countered Northen.

Having enough money to turn on the lights is not enough, said Elias. The court needs to determine if it's fair for students in districts that cannot afford computers, textbooks, counselors and librarians to be held to the same standards as students in wealthier districts?

"You are here today because it's all about money," replied Judge P. Kevin Brobson. "The funding system relies too heavily on local property taxes and puts a disadvantage on poor communities, and you want a better system."

"I completely agree the funding system is broke," Elias said, adding that the plaintiffs would present evidence that shows poorer districts, no matter where they are located, do not reach standards of more wealthy district.

If the case goes to trial, Brobson added, the plaintiffs open themselves and all school districts to the Legislature seeking financial records to determine how they spend taxpayer money.

"Five hundred school districts will be on trial in this court," he said.

If the case goes to trial and the state Supreme Court ultimately sides with the school districts, the court has no ability to order the Legislature to institute higher taxes to pay for increased funding, said President Judge Dan Pellegrini. He pointed to a case in the 1980s in which the state Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to pay for county court systems, and the Legislature simply ignored the ruling until the high court simply dismissed it.

The plaintiffs are not asking for an immediate infusion of money, Elias said. They want to give the Legislature and governor a "reasonable time frame" for developing a fairer funding formula, he said.